Page 1 of 1

2018 NIAC Symposium

Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:21 am
by Skipjack
Lot's of interesting items at this years NIAC symposium.

Today Woodward presented the latest results of the Mach Effect Research.
Stephanie Thomas presented more work PSS and PPPL did on the FRC based Direct Fusion Drive.
Ryan Weed of Positron Dynamics presented some information on their Positron catalyzed fusion propulsion system.
Robert Adams showed more results of the Pulsed Fission Fusion propulsion concept.
I am also looking forward to John Slough's (of Helion and MSNW) presentation on Thursday.
And there are tons more interesting things today and in the days to come.

https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2018

Re: 2018 NIAC Symposium

Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:53 pm
by TDPerk
And Dr. James Woodward presented on the Mach Effect Thruster, which has recently been reported by Dr. Heidi Fearn to have an efficiency of 60mN/kW, placing it on a par with Hall Effect Trhusters.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/09/m ... owatt.html

Re: 2018 NIAC Symposium

Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:14 pm
by Maui
Heidi Fearn will be taking a working device to Dresden and will stay with them until they get it working. Dresden had problems with a previous device and published bad results.

Hmmm. Does this interfere with the concept of independent validation?

Re: 2018 NIAC Symposium

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:14 am
by TDPerk
Maui wrote:
Heidi Fearn will be taking a working device to Dresden and will stay with them until they get it working. Dresden had problems with a previous device and published bad results.

Hmmm. Does this interfere with the concept of independent validation?


I think not after Tajmar cooked the last piece of hardware Woodward loaned to him.

And what's she gonna do? Witch it into working while everyone is watching?

Re: 2018 NIAC Symposium

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:44 am
by Maui
I’m a software developer, not a scientist, but I think there’s a strong parallel with the “it works on my machine” phenomenon I’ve experience quite often. Frequently code written on my machine that works great for me ends up not working for a tester (or worse, a customer) because I didn’t account for an uncontrolled, unanticipated factor that influences the behavior of the code. If I step a tester thru such a test, in many cases the issue would not have been discovered because I was not aware my specific steps were coincidentally setting up the uncontrolled factor just so.

I certainly have had cases where desired behavior I assumed to be the result of the code I wrote was instead completely an accident coincidentally caused by something else entirely. Actually, Woodward himself talks here about how he accidentally stumbled into the frequency he needed. What if that was, if fact, the frequency that triggers some unanticipated factor in their test set up rather than his Mach effect theory?

I suppose it doesn’t affect the validity of a test, tho, to allow a tester to set up the test independently, then ensure that the controlled factors are configured correctly.

Anyhow, I listened to the short presentation and it sounded to me that the part about staying there until it worked might be a joke.

Re: 2018 NIAC Symposium

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:55 am
by TDPerk
Maui wrote:I’m a software developer, not a scientist, but I think there’s a strong parallel with the “it works on my machine” phenomenon I’ve experience quite often. Frequently code written on my machine that works great for me ends up not working for a tester (or worse, a customer) because I didn’t account for an uncontrolled, unanticipated factor that influences the behavior of the code. If I step a tester thru such a test, in many cases the issue would not have been discovered because I was not aware my specific steps were coincidentally setting up the uncontrolled factor just so.

I certainly have had cases where desired behavior I assumed to be the result of the code I wrote was instead completely an accident coincidentally caused by something else entirely. Actually, Woodward himself talks here about how he accidentally stumbled into the frequency he needed. What if that was, if fact, the frequency that triggers some unanticipated factor in their test set up rather than his Mach effect theory?



Then the approx. 500 sampling rate of Tajmar's DAQ will find the aliasing. Nevertheless, it has worked for Woodward on different designs at approx. the correct frequency for differing designs.

I suppose it doesn’t affect the validity of a test, tho, to allow a tester to set up the test independently, then ensure that the controlled factors are configured correctly.

Anyhow, I listened to the short presentation and it sounded to me that the part about staying there until it worked might be a joke.


Might. There is also the fact Woodward and Fearn would both like the period of uncertainty to come to a close. Tajmat unambiguously finding for it's validity would go far towards that.

Re: 2018 NIAC Symposium

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:58 am
by TDPerk
Maui wrote:I’m a software developer, not a scientist, but I think there’s a strong parallel with the “it works on my machine” phenomenon I’ve experience quite often. Frequently code written on my machine that works great for me ends up not working for a tester (or worse, a customer) because I didn’t account for an uncontrolled, unanticipated factor that influences the behavior of the code. If I step a tester thru such a test, in many cases the issue would not have been discovered because I was not aware my specific steps were coincidentally setting up the uncontrolled factor just so.

I certainly have had cases where desired behavior I assumed to be the result of the code I wrote was instead completely an accident coincidentally caused by something else entirely. Actually, Woodward himself talks here about how he accidentally stumbled into the frequency he needed. What if that was, if fact, the frequency that triggers some unanticipated factor in their test set up rather than his Mach effect theory?



Then the approx. 500 fold sampling rate of Tajmar's DAQ will find the aliasing. Nevertheless, it has worked for Woodward on different designs at approx. the correct frequency for differing designs.

I suppose it doesn’t affect the validity of a test, tho, to allow a tester to set up the test independently, then ensure that the controlled factors are configured correctly.

Anyhow, I listened to the short presentation and it sounded to me that the part about staying there until it worked might be a joke.


Might. There is also the fact Woodward and Fearn would both like the period of uncertainty to come to a close. Tajmar unambiguously finding for it's validity would go far towards that. The contrary result would also remove uncertainty...if Woodward and Fearn agree the correct protocols were followed.

If the validity of the concept is confirmed, then a period of intense materials science R&D needs to happen to produce better materials for it.

Of course, it should not be named dilithium. The temptation must be resisted. :lol:

Re: 2018 NIAC Symposium

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:29 pm
by krenshala
It would be quite humorous if a man-made crystalline structure of paired lithium atoms turned out to be a key material for the Mach Effect device. :roll:

Re: 2018 NIAC Symposium

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:34 pm
by TDPerk
krenshala wrote:It would be quite humorous if a man-made crystalline structure of paired lithium atoms turned out to be a key material for the Mach Effect device. :roll:


What's worse is that over 60 years ago, Vernor von Braun wrote a book about the settlement of Mars. The title of the Chief Executive of the Martian government was "the Elon".

Not a hell of a lot gives the heebie jeebiess...

Re: 2018 NIAC Symposium

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:24 pm
by alexjrgreen
krenshala wrote:It would be quite humorous if a man-made crystalline structure of paired lithium atoms turned out to be a key material for the Mach Effect device. :roll:

Pairing in dense lithium